4 ms·

True, but who deems and verifies if someone is a member of an enemy force? In traditional war, a soldier would have a uniform, and there are laws against killin

True, but who deems and verifies if someone is a member of an enemy force? In traditional war, a soldier would have a uniform, and there are laws against killing non-uniformed peeps. In asymmetrical warfare, it's obviously much harder to ID legitimate targets. The problem isn't whether or not the government should be killing known enemies of the state, it's that the executive branch is unilaterally deciding and confirming who is an enemy of the state. The worst case scenario message being sent is that if I or a fellow American steps outside our land, the executive can decide to blow us away, based on evidence they provide. Judge, jury, and executioner. Literally. But it doesn't really matter if the executive provides a photo of an American holding an AK-47, a court needs to decide if the citizen is a traitor or not (and i'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they'd provide at least that much evidence, which ,actually, legally, I would think still isn't much).

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
US civilian courts have no jurisdiction outside of US borders, and again, why would such a requirement need to be met for US citizens but not foreigners? Everyone is afforded the same rights (equality under the law). In a war, there is no legal need to justify killings in front of a judge. This is all just legally speaking, however. Practically, I think that Obama would be very wise to seek approval from a panel of judges for all authorizations, regardless of whom is targeted. Unlike in traditional wars, the US government is very specifically going after certain individuals. It would seem prudent for the actors involved to seek the legitimacy granted by a panel of judges. But I would still say that the law does not require it.
- moogleii 13y ago
  In a traditional war, legality has already been met via law (either through a formal declaration of war or through the limited war powers given to the executive). There is no need to justify in front of a judge, because the rights have already been granted. But again, you can only kill certain people, also defined by law. You can't just start carpet bombing cities anymore, otherwise, yes, you may very well find yourself in front of a judge (and presumably these cities would consist of foreigners, so yes, there would be a requirement). US courts may not have jurisdiction abroad, but the executor of actions is presumably or will presumably be on American soil at some point.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago

US civilian courts have no jurisdiction outside of US borders, and again, why would such a requirement need to be met for US citizens but not foreigners? Everyone is afforded the same rights (equality under the law). In a war, there is no legal need to justify killings in front of a judge. This is all just legally speaking, however. Practically, I think that Obama would be very wise to seek approval from a panel of judges for all authorizations, regardless of whom is targeted. Unlike in traditional wars, the US government is very specifically going after certain individuals. It would seem prudent for the actors involved to seek the legitimacy granted by a panel of judges. But I would still say that the law does not require it.

moogleii 13y ago
In a traditional war, legality has already been met via law (either through a formal declaration of war or through the limited war powers given to the executive). There is no need to justify in front of a judge, because the rights have already been granted. But again, you can only kill certain people, also defined by law. You can't just start carpet bombing cities anymore, otherwise, yes, you may very well find yourself in front of a judge (and presumably these cities would consist of foreigners, so yes, there would be a requirement). US courts may not have jurisdiction abroad, but the executor of actions is presumably or will presumably be on American soil at some point.